Rising levels of income inequality in almost all industrialized countries as a consequence of globalization and de-industrialization might lead one to assume that voters will demand more redistribution and exert influence on their governments to set up redistributive programmes. However, this is not always the case. Citizens do not react directly to actual levels of inequality, as research on the attitudes towards inequality and redistribution has shown. In this article the complex relation between cross-national variation of inequality and public support for redistribution is analysed. The article draws on explanations from both a political economy perspective as well as drawing on comparative welfare regime research. While the former conceives cross-national variations in support for redistribution as the aggregate effect of a demand of rational actors reacting to country context, the latter focuses on the impact of institutions and culture superimposing itself over self-interest. The empirical analysis tests the explanations of both the political economy and welfare regimes approach. Since the article focuses on the impact of context variables on individual attitudes, a multilevel analysis is adopted. Data are taken from the 1999 ‘International Social Survey Program’ and are complemented by macro-economic variables. Based on the results, a model of contingent support for redistribution is put forward, where culturally influenced definitions are embedded in economic processes.
Contributing to the debate on the decline of the middle class, this article provides a comparative and longitudinal analysis of changes to the relative position of middle income groups in 19 (post)industrial countries between 1985 and 2005. How much did the income position of the middle worsen compared with more vulnerable groups? To what extent did public policies mitigate the market position of different income groups? The analysis is based on microdata of the Luxembourg Income Study. It divides the broad category of ‘middle class’ into three groups. Results suggest little change in the income position of the middle classes with respect to both market and disposable incomes. In most countries market incomes in the top quintile increased remarkably while the bottom quintile group lost out. The scale of government income redistribution has improved the position of the lowest income group, while burdening the highest income group. But it failed to fully compensate for the growing gap between the top and bottom income groups. The distance between the middle and the top incomes grew significantly, which might be one reason for the current public debate about an endangered middle class.
Comparative research revealed that social programs did not suffer significant decline despite globalisation and stiffer international competition. Instead, a striking stability of social expenditure is observed which is explained by voters' demands for social protection because of new uncertainties connected to economic openness. The domestic demand approach conceives the welfare state as a means to compensate for the risks a globalised economy puts on citizens' job security, and as a means to foster the acceptance of an open economy. Given the prominence of these assumptions little research has been conducted to test them. Does economic openness actually increase unemployment and feelings of job insecurity? Does this in turn lead to a higher voter demand for social secudty? This paper analyses the propositions of domestic demand approaches based on a data set comprised of waves of the module "Role of Government" from the International Social Survey Programme (1990,1996 and 2006) and additional country-level features. The results show that economic openness has a negative effect when other insecurity-causing trends are controlled. Also subjective job insecurity instead of the projected positive effect rather shows a negative relation. Social security demand decreases the more job insecurity people perceive. This is interpreted as a consequence of the fear of those still employed that voting for more expenditures would endanger existing jobs. Moreover, the hypothesis that economic openness now spreads economic dsks and feelings of insecurity over a broader social strata rather than remaining mired at the low end of the social spectrum is not confirmed.
ZusammenfassungDas Problem, wie erwachsene Kinder abwägen und entscheiden, wenn die eigene Erwerbstätigkeit mit dem Hilfe- und Pflegebedarf eines betagten Elternteiles in Konflikt gerät, wird hier zum empirischen „Wetzstein“ für die handlungstheoretische Erklärung sozialen Handelns. Dazu zieht die Autorin Ansätze aus der Familiensoziologie wie auch (insbesondere neuere) Rational Choice-Modelle heran. Deren Annahmen und Gehalt zur Erklärung sozialen Handelns werden kritisch diskutiert. Zur Überwindung der Dichotomie zwischen dem „übersozialisierten“ Akteur des Ansatzes normativen Handelns und dem Homo oeconomicus des Rational Choice-Ansatzes schlägt die Autorin die handlungstheoretischen Modelle Alfred Schütz’ und Pierre Bourdieus vor. Deren größere Angemessenheit an den Gegenstand wird anhand der empirischen Handlungs- und Wissensmuster der Akteure gezeigt. Zu ihrer Analyse bedarf es Kategorien, die die soziale Gebundenheit der Zielsetzungen und Präferenzen und zugleich den strategischen Umgang mit sozialer Wertschätzung, wie er sich in Praxisstrategien erwachsener Kinder zeigt, erfassen. Schütz Begriff des sozialen Wissensvorrates und Bourdieus Konzept einer Ökonomie der Praxis leisten beides.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.